Geraldine Nesbitt

Geraldine NesbittStudent nr: C104205Transmedialities: Performance at the EdgeLo, Lola, LolitaRemake, Adaptation and Defining Success

IntroductionWatch a film and nine out of ten times it will be either an adaptation of a book or other text,or it will be a remake of an earlier film or combination of films; in some cases it will even beboth. When a source film deviates considerably from its source text, the Director of thesubsequent movie may choose either to return to the original text when re-scripting his film,or to refer to the previous film for his inspiration; he might even choose to only loosely adhereto both, and so create something entirely new.When Adrian Lyne filmed Lolita in 1997 he had to stand hisground against two remarkable influences in the literary and film world:Vladimir Nabokov and Stanley Kubrick, both of whom had in the 35years since the first filming of Nabokov’s novel grown in professionalstature. Nabokov’s novel, that on its completion almost failed to find apublisher, was now recognised as a work of literary genius, its writer asophisticated, insightful and humorous analyst of human nature.The film director Kubrick had, subsequent to his interpretation ofLolita, risen in stature as a director for films thatincluded Full Metal Jacket and The Shining.Kubrick’s Lolita was pre A Clockwork Orange, pre 2001: A SpaceOdyssey and pre the aforementioned movies. It was made by aKubrick still searching for his “voice” and perhaps still in awe of hissource, Nabokov. On the other hand, Lyne’s Lolita was post 9½Weeks and post Fatal Attraction and in some circles Adrian Lyne wasseen as a mere ad-man turned soft porn Director. So at the time ofrelease both films are at the outset handicapped by the status of theirDirectors; but in 1997 Lyne was additionally handicapped by theposition Kubrick held in Cinema at that moment.Fabula and StyleAdrian Lyne has chosen to adhere to the “fabula” (Elliot: 230) of Nabokov’s novel. Toemphasise this approach there is extensive application of “non-diagetic” (Forceville, C)voiceovers that are quotes plucked directly from the novel. These voiceovers serve asreminders that we are viewing a work of art, and remind us that this is a “reflexive” film(Stam: Preface-xi) much in the same way that Nabokov defends Lolita by saying “For me awork of fiction exists only insofar as it affords me what I shall bluntly call aesthetic bliss, thatis a sense of being somehow, somewhere connected with other states of being where art… isthe norm.” (314-315). Granted Kubrick also uses voiceovers but they are not as ubiquitous asLyne’s.The search for Lolita after she has run away, which takes Humbert criss-cross overAmerica, is, in Lyne’s film, narrated almost entirely with voiceovers: Nabokov’s lyrical,highly-stylized, hypnotic prose. It is an important development in characterisation, allowingthe viewer to witness Humbert’s psychological deterioration, echoing the moral tone of thenovel, where Humbert’s deviance eventually leads to hisdownfall. Kubrick eliminates this search entirely, andjumps forward to Lolita’s begging letter, which takesHumbert straight to her. Kubrick has chosen not to adhere tothe ‘fabula’ of the novel, and prefers to allude to his ownprior works.In the opening scene of the film (foreshadowing theend) Quilty springs from under the dustcovers of a chairproclaiming he is Spartacus referring to Kubrick’s previous work. This ridiculous Quilty will

dominate the film, whereas in the novel and in Adrian Lyne’s adaptation Quilty is the sinisterfigure lurking in the shadows.Spirit and StyleNabokov’s style also contained other important elements; namely satire and irony.Despite dealing with a delicate subject: the obsession of a paedophile with his ward, he bringshumour into the prose, as here when describing the playwright Quilty and at the same timeforeshadowing what will eventually happen to him: “…The murdered playwright. Quine theswine. Guilty of killing Quilty. Oh, my Lolita, I have only words to play with!” (32). Or “‘Sheis still shuttling,’ said Miss Pratt, ‘… between the anal and the genital zones ofdevelopment.’” (194). And then to remind us that this is a mere work of fiction. “If you wantto make a movie out of my book, have one of these faces melt gently into my own, while Ilook.” (122).Kubrick, under severe pressure from influential institutions, including the CatholicChurch, and aware of the fine line he was walking in filming Lolita, (Bane: 150) minimisedthe darker side of the novel and defended his adaptation in an article entitled Words andMovies that appeared in Sight and Sound magazine in 1961:People have asked me how it is possible to make a film out of Lolita when so muchof the quality of the book depends on Nabokov's prose style. But to take the prosestyle as any more than just a part of a great book is simply misunderstanding justwhat a great book is. Of course, the quality of the writing is one of the elementsthat make a novel great. But this quality is a result of the quality of thewriter's obsession with his subject….Style is what an artist uses to fascinate the beholder in order to convey to himhis feelings and emotions and thoughts. These are what have to be dramatised,not the style. The dramatising has to find a style of its own, as it will do if itreally grasps the content. (14)While Kubrick adds the satirical element by expanding the role of Quilty throughoutthe book, and by assigning the role to the “hypertextual” (Stam: 25) Peter Sellers, who to theinformed viewer can never be taken seriously given his reputation as a Goon, Lyne’s Lolitalacks this humour, “swerving” (Geddes on Bloom) away from the “spirit” (Elliot: 222) of thenovel to create a darker work. Against the almost slapstick performance of Peter Sellers,Frank Langella as Quilty is a sinister figure, lurking in the shadows; his only redeemingfeature is his collaboration with Vivian Darkbloom (anag. Vladimir Nabokov), which mayencourage a lopsided smile from the informed viewer. This same ‘reflexive’ technique,ubiquitous in Kubrick’s film, misses the subtlety of Lyne’s allusion, and given that Kubrick,having persuaded Nabokov to write the screenplay, subsequently re-wrote it, until no morethan 20% survived (Bane: 152 footnote), the allusion becomes no more than a consolationprize for Nabokov.Characterisation and FocalizationCharacterisation plays an important role in defining the ‘spirit’ of a source text or inillustrating author intent. Whether the onusof responsibility for the events that unfold inthe novel lie with Lolita or with HumbertHumbert, depends largely on how the authorchooses to portray them. Nabokov leaves noroom for doubt about the “reality” or his

“illusion” of reality (Stam: 1). One of the most important elements in this ‘reality’ is that it isa first person narrative. The foreword which precedes the novel proper in Lolita by thefictitious John Ray says:“Lolita, or the Confessions of a White Widowed Male,” such were the two titles underwhich the writer of the present note received the strange pages it perambulates.“Humbert Humbert,” their author, had died in legal captivity, of a coronarythrombosis….this remarkable memoir is presented intact…. For the benefit of oldfashionedreaders who wish to follow the destinies of the “real” people beyond the“true” story…Everything after that is related by Humbert himself.But, despite this dominant point of view, Nabokov actually shifts “focalization” froman internal “character focalizor” to an “external focalizor” (Bal: 148): the first being Humbert,the second also Humbert as he becomes further unravelled, and split emotionally. At thesemoments he talks about himself in the third person, and develops various nicknames forhimself, that illustrate his current state of mind. “Humbert the Hummer…. Humbert Humbert…. Humbert the Hound …. I crushed out against her left buttock the last throb of the longestecstasy man or monster had ever known.” (57-61).Nabokov portrays a complex Humbert, fully aware of his deviance, who sees himself aspowerless to resist his base urges. Humbert is a man who marries a widow to maintainproximity to her daughter, and despite being fully aware that she is a pubescent girl given towild fantasy: “I am said to resemble some crooner or actor chap on whom Lo has a crush.”(43) and “Pubescent Lo swooned to Humbert’s charm as she did to hiccupy music;”(104)engages in a sexual relationship with her even when she resists: “never did she vibrate undermy touch; and a strident “what are you doing?” was all I got for my pains …. between aHamburger and a Humburger, she would … plump for the former… I dubbed her my frigidprincess.” (166) and “it was always my habit and method to ignore Lolita’s states of mind,while comforting my own base needs.”(287).Neither Kubrick nor Lyne have achievedthis multilayered characterisation. Kubrick hasopted for the impartial observer, maintaining‘external focalization’ throughout. His Humbertis serious and calculated, displaying by hisactions that he at all times knew what he wasdoing. Kubrick’s Lolita is less clearly defined.Again the climate and the era in which Kubrick’sfilm was made forced Kubrick to leave Lolitaopen to personal interpretation. She is neithercompletely innocent nor completely calculating.Thirty five years later, Lyne does not shy away from creating sympathy for Humbertand assigning Lolita a less palatable character. Lyne shifts from the ‘external focalizor’ to the‘character focalizor’ and it is Humbert who provides the ‘voiceovers’ that are direct quotesfrom the novel. In this way Humbert relates directly to the viewer, winning sympathy. Addedto this, Lyne’s Lolita is the temptress, albeit a guileless one; Lyne later modifies this when heintroduces the possibility that Lolita has been sending out signals that are appropriate forpubescent boys who share her stage of development but inappropriate when aimed at thepaedophile Humbert.There comes a point at which Lolita realises that her situation is unnatural. But she hasnowhere else to go. She realises that Humbert cannot resist her sexually and now demands

money for sexual favours; money she saves to finance hereventual escape. She plans her escape with Quilty’s help.Here Lyne begins to shift more frequently between the‘external focalizor’ to the ‘character focalizor’ offering theviewer the opportunity to see Humbert through Lolita’seyes, and vice versa. As Humbert deterioratespsychologically, so too the sympathetic character traitsdiminish.CinematographyA shift in focalization as mentioned in the previous section, is achieved in film byswitching cameras. The main camera, which impersonally records all characters in the scene,is replaced with a camera that actually ‘takes the place’ of one of the characters. In Lyne’sLolita the external focalizor camera shows Humbert slapping Lolita on the face, characterfocalizor camera as Humbert ‘sees’ Lolita lift her hand to her face then character focalizorcamera as Lolita ‘sees’ Humbert’s reaction. So the viewer is given the opportunity to ‘feel’Humbert’s horror at his own action and ‘feel’ Lolita’s shock and helplessness.Kubrick chooses not to employ this cinematographic tool. However the mis en scene,including the ‘vanitas’ elements such as the triptych shrine to Charlotte Haze’s dead husbandand the photographs on the wall remind us of the brevity of life and the transience of humanpleasures. Another trick Kubrick uses to sow a seed of doubt about Humbert’s trustworthinessis at the beginning of the film in the garden, when Humbert has just decided to stay at theHaze’s so that he can enjoy “Cherry pie” an obvious play on words. At this point the cameracuts away to a scene from a Frankenstein movie, and the unmasking of the monster, themetaphor underlined by the switch to Humbert, Charlotte and Lolita watching the movie at adrive-in, with Humbert preferring to clasp Lolita’s hand. A seed has been planted. Thesummer camp Lolita attends is called ‘Camp Climax’. As Humbert pauses at the sign, theviewer sees him indulging in the scantily clad campers. Another seed.Adrian Lyne, borrowing from his experience in 9½ weeks and Fatal Attraction, makesuse of many cinematographic tools. The most striking effect is his use of lighting. In the midsection of the film, when the relationship between Humbert and Lolita is most subversive, thelighting is dull in scenes containing both of them. Rooms are drab, items cannot be seenclearly. In the latter section of the film, as Lolita starts to prise herself free from Humbert, thehotel rooms become brighter, (the last one is white and brightly lit). The hospital is alsobrightly lit: Humbert cannot lurk in the shadows any longer, nor can he keep Lolita prisoner.During Humbert’s search for Lolita across America, the camera films from long shots, andaerialshots. A lone car crossing the American desert symbolises Humbert’s isolation.A striking cinematographic difference between the two films is that Kubrick’s is blackand white and Lyne’s is colour. A conscious choice by Kubrick who had previously produceda film in colour (The Seafarers). Black and white is used ‘reflexively’ reminding the viewerthat this is a film. In contrast Lyne’s application of colour, of light and shade, is reminiscentof 9½ weeks, also a story of sexual obsession and ultimately self-destruction.Both films begin with the mist, which inevitably foreshadows a murky narrative.Remake, Adaptation and Defining SuccessA spokesman for the MPAA found Kubrick’s script to be unacceptable, saying: “script,in my opinion, has turned an important literary achievement into the worst sort of botched-uppastiche that could be imagined”. (Hughes 103). When the film was finally released criticscondemned it as “the saddest and most important victim of the current reckless adaptationfad” or “an occasionally amusing but shapeless film…like a bee from which the stinger has

een removed.” The Observer called it “Lolita Fiasco” said the film turned Nabokov’s novelinto a story about “this poor English guy who is being given the runaround by this sly youngbroad” (Hughes 99).The credits of Lyne’s film state: “Based on the Novel by Vladimir Nabokov”,Kubrick’s “Based on a Screenplay by Vladimir Nabokov”. The question remains, is Lolita1997 a remake of Lolita 1962? Lyne is silent on the issue. However, it is amusing to note inthe closing scene of the film that he allows the ‘sacred cow’ to cross Humbert’s path as hederives his car into a field. Whether the intention is there or not, the film is by its existence aremake, though by his silence on the issue, Lyne frees himself of any responsibility when itcomes to improving on the original, bringing it up to date, or paying homage to it. (Segal: 63).Paradoxically, it took until 1997, and Lyne’s Lolita for Kubrick’s film to be re-evaluated.Lyne’s version fell short by comparison for most critics. Kubrick, defined by Jack Nicolson as‘the man’ of film, was a hard act to follow for ex ad-man Lyne.It was a decisive Lyne that distanced himself from the remake rumours; the same Lyne‘swerved’ just as decisively from the Nabokov narrative too. As Phillip Martin sums up in hisarticle for the Arkansas Democrat-GazetteLyne and Schiff have opted not to play up to the vulgar and common misconceptionof Lolita that all the hubbub has only propagated. Nor…. are they ultimately faithful tothe book, eliding the layers of irony and judgment in which lurk Nabokov’s realauthorial voice and design.By extensive application ofNabokov’s prose, and by adherence to thefabula, Lyne chooses not to empty theancestor entirely (Geddes on Bloom).However, by re-inventing the characters ofLolita and Humbert – Dominique Swain asLolita is an irresistible temptress for JeremyIrons as Humbert – and asserting influenceover the viewer through subtle use oftechniques such as focalization, he in factcreates a new narrative and an original workwith its own spirit. As a remake consideredinferior, as an adaptation too careful, this film, without abridgement or embellishment,demands its own merit as a valid work of creation.“…in near relatives, the faintest gastric gurgle has the same ‘voice’.” (Nabokov: 95)

Works citedBal, Mieke, Narratology: Introduction to the Theory of Narrative, Toronto & Buffalo:University of Toronto Press, 1985.Bane, Charles, Viewing Novels and Reading Films: Stanley Kubrick and the Art ofAdaptation as Interpretation, Louisiana State University, August 2006.Elliot, Kamilla, Literary film adaptation and the form/content dilemma. In: Marie-Laure Ryan(ed.). Narrative across media. Nebraska University Press, 2004.Forceville, Charles, lecture, Comfort of Strangers, UvA, Media Studies 2006-2007Geddes, Dan, Bloom’s Anxiety of Influence, 17 May 2007.www.thesatirist.com/books/anxiety_of_influence.htmlHughes, David. The Complete Kubrick, London: Virgin, 2000.Martin, Phillip, Lolita 1997, Arkansas Democrat-Gazette, July 31, 2002.Nabokov, Vladimir, Lolita. First Vintage International Edition, March 1989.Seger, Linda, The Art of Adaptation: Turning Fact and Fiction into Film, Henry Holt andCompany, LLC, New York, 1992Stam, Robert, Reflexivity in Film and Literature, from don Quixote to Jean Luc Godard(x-xiv); 1 – 27, Ann Arbor,: UMI Research Press.